Since many people continue to unwittingly promote socialism with their misguided insistence that "every tax cut is good," I'm going to illustrate why a TARGETED (e.g., just for one entity) tax break is welfare, economically equivalent to a subsidy, and a cost to other taxpayers.

Imagine a state with only three people: Al, Bo, and Cy. Each person pays $4 in annual taxes, so the government collects $12 total. The government spends all that money providing services. It distributes services equally among its residents and is required to balance its budget.

Suppose the government wants to attract a new person, Di, to the state. The government is excited about all the business Di will bring, so it promises Di that her annual taxes will be only $1 if she makes the move. Di is thrilled and accepts the offer.

Now the state has four people. The government collects $13 in taxes ($4 + $4 + $4 + $1) to be spent on services. But because government services are distributed equally, Al, Bo, and Cy now receive only $3.25 each in services ($13 / 4), even though each still pays $4 in taxes.

In other words, Al, Bo, and Cy now get less for each tax dollar; their effective tax rate has gone up, thanks to the government's special break for Di.

Suppose the government attempts to maintain government services at the level provided prior to Di's arrival, i.e., $4 per person in services. Since the state now has four people, the government will need to collect $16 in taxes. It currently collects $13.

Di's annual taxes are fixed at $1, so the additional $3 will have to come from Al, Bo, and Cy. Consequently, Al, Bo, and Cy will have to pay $5 per person in taxes, to receive $4 per person in services, thanks to the government's special break for Di.

Even if the government convinces Di to bear some of the additional tax burden, or finds another way to raise revenue, if any portion of the $3 comes from Al, Bo, and Cy, they will pay more in taxes than they receive in services, thanks to the government's special break for Di.

Meanwhile, Di is living large. She is paying only $1 in annual taxes while receiving $3.25 to $4 in government services. The difference is a welfare subsidy to her, no less than if the government forced Al, Bo, and Cy to write her a check or hand her some cash.

The fact that Di is receiving services paid for by others rather than dollar bills from others does not make the transfer any less a welfare subsidy.

What about the claim that Di's arrival will boost the economy and more than pay for her special tax break? Many of the proponents of this view seem unaware that they are advocating central planning, a main tenet of socialism. To see this, let's return to the illustration.

Advocates of Di's special tax break are saying that, ALL ELSE EQUAL, they would rather give Di a very large tax break (75%) than give everyone a modest tax break. In other words, they believe that government central planners can outperform the market by shifting money to Di.

If your reply is "give others a tax break, too," then you've missed the point. You can't give others a tax break AND hold all else equal. The budget must be balanced; government spending would have to be cut. The relevant analysis is how best to tax at a GIVEN level of spending.

We could rerun this illustration at a much lower level of government spending, and the relevant analysis again would be how best to tax at this level of spending: Is it best to give one person a very large tax break or to give everyone a modest tax break?

For a primer on why the free market is superior to central planning, read this: fee.org/articles/the-u…. In short, keeping more money in the hands of everyone produces better economic outcomes than giving a special advantage to one person.

When advocates of Di's special tax break talk about the economic growth and jobs it will create, they commit the broken window fallacy: fee.org/articles/the-b…. They ignore the break's opportunity cost; the government has deprived Al, Bo, and Cy of a tax break. That's a net loss.

We can imagine variations of this illustration. For example, maybe Al, Bo, Cy, and Di already live in the same state, and then the government gives Di a special tax break for "economic development." The end result, however, is the same: The special break is economically harmful.

This illustration is not meant to suggest that humans can design a perfect tax code. But when the government intentionally gives a special tax break to one entity, not only is the government undermining the Rule of Law, but it also is knowingly harming the economy.

Many of the allegations against @POTUS are serious and should be taken seriously, especially by members of Congress.

We should allow Robert Mueller to complete his investigation and issue his report before taking any action potentially affecting the president’s tenure.

Based on the deliberations of the Framers of the Constitution and Federalist No. 69, I believe that a sitting president should not be criminally prosecuted. Before facing ordinary criminal liability, he first would have to be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office.

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.…

“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.…

“It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.…

We say diplomacy and dialogue are good. Few Americans would disagree with that. Peace and prosperity can’t be secured without communication and engagement.

For my part, I have urged presidents to meet with the leaders of Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and other countries to build better relationships. These interactions make it possible to change behavior, to turn foes into friends.

Related threads

So, I've waded through the Evangelical Alliance's new pastoral "guidelines" for interacting with trans people (ughh, the things I do to expose #transphobic#ciswits to the world), and let's just say it's time to tear this particular sh*t-bag a new hole.

001/ [article content in this tweet series 001-180 reproduced with permission from Martin Howe QC of Lawyers for Britain @lawyers4britain]#quote "Leaving the EU on WTO terms: pulling down the barriers to world trade
Introduction: why prices will FALL after Brexit, not rise" /002

002/ #quote "Over the past couple of weeks, the media have been full of lurid scare stories about what will happen if the UK leaves the EU on WTO terms, because negotiations with the EU do not result in a withdrawal agreement." /003

Lumumba (in the DRC), Mossadegh (in Iran), dozens more: the US and UK orchestrated coups around the world against leaders who threatened to take control of national resources away from foreign companies. Each of these left massive destruction in the countries.

Don't forget that Khomeini only took power in Iran after a popular revolution overthrew the brutal regime of the Shah - the regime that the US and UK installed and maintained after overthrowing Mossadegh. Boy, that one turned out great.

Why do I bring this up? Lots of talking heads are talking lately about how many people have been killed by Socialism, versus how many great advances happened under Capitalism. Why does Socialism only get credit for deaths, and Capitalism only for progress?

People who go on about sales in comics, knowing NOTHING about comics history, not able to grasp that once there were a few publishers making comics with a lock on the industry, now there are HUNDREDS of companies, THOUSANDS of books, THOUSANDS of choices.

Bestseller list at comics distributors used to cover about 100 comics and that's about all that were published are every month, the distributor catalogues were barely pamphlets then they became tomes, there were only a few graphic novels for sale every month!

There is a long tail of published comics that simply did not exist 40 years ago, almost no indies, no webcomics, almost no graphic novels, very few books in libraries, little bookstore penetration. A small, simple system that is now broad and complex.

I'm currently at this #Brexit conference in Copenhagen, where the British ambassador and several #DExEU officials will be on panels with representatives of Danish trade and security. It'll be very interesting to see what's said, especially in light of May's recent Munich speech.

.@jordanbpeterson argues that it is hypocritical for women to wear makeup & not to expect sexual coercion (harassment) & that maybe they're partially to blame if it happens. Here is thread on why he is maybe fractally wrong (wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution)

He is distorting current evolutionary psychology/biology evidence & making grandiose claims (hypocrisy). Makeup can be a poor & FALSE signal of sociosexuality. This implies that maybe women who use it are not doing it only for intersexual display & sexual availability (for men)

This adds to the evidence that makeup can be a bad or even false signal for inferring behaviors, attitudes and desires linked to the willingness to engage in sexual relationships without emotional commitment (short-term mating effort).